Note of Appreciation
This subscriber is grateful for the quality of the RHP Site Moderator Teams as well as for the objectivity and sound judgement they bring
to the daily challenges of their gratis volunteer work. Although their impersonal/policy based decisions may, at times, seem unpopular
with some members who have violated terms of service, the simple fact is that the site would be unmanageable without them. Thanks.
-gb
Unmanageable means difficult or impossible to manage, uncontrollable. Unmanaged means only that a manager (or moderator) is not in control. If the site is unmanageable or uncontrollable, then the presence or absence of managers without abundant power probably wouldn't make much difference. I think unmanaged is the word you want.
Originally posted by HandyAndyLet's simplify: (1) Russ & Chris are "in control". The site is, therefore, managed. (2) Managing the site effectively would clearly be "difficult
[b]Unmanageable means difficult or impossible to manage, uncontrollable. Unmanaged means only that a manager (or moderator) is not in control. If the site is unmanageable or uncontrollable, then the presence or absence of managers without abundant power probably wouldn't make much difference. I think unmanaged is the word you want.[/b]
or impossible" without delegation of duties to subordinates/moderator volunteers. (3) Hence, "the site would be unmanageable without them".
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe sticking point seems to be our definition of unmanageable.
Let's simplify: (1) Russ & Chris are "in control". The site is, therefore, managed. (2) Managing the site effectively would clearly be "difficult
or impossible" without delegation of duties to subordinates/moderator volunteers. (3) Hence, "the site would be unmanageable without them".
I define unmanageable as incapable of being managed.
In other words, there are no managers.. there can be no managers.. managers do not apply.
What's your definition?
Originally posted by HandyAndyUnderstand Webster's strict meaning... well enough to appropriate the word for everyday use in a slightly less rigid way: extraordinarily
The sticking point seems to be our definition of unmanageable.
I define unmanageable as [b]incapable of being managed.
In other words, there are no managers.. there can be no managers.. managers do not apply.
What's your definition?[/b]
difficult situation, nearly impossible to deal with, so unruly, as with unmanageable hair (but somehow still getting through a bad hair day).
Russ & Chris represent ownership and chief executive of operations management functions. Delegated authority maintains site integrity.
🙂
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou're writing your own dictionary. There's no "nearly" in unmanageable. If you want a less rigid expression, say "nearly unmanageable."
Understand Webster's strict meaning... well enough to appropriate the word for everyday use in a slightly less rigid way: extraordinarily
difficult situation, nearly impossible to deal with, so unruly, as with unmanageable hair (but somehow still getting through a bad hair day).
Russ & Chris represent ownership and chief executive of operations management functions. Delegated authority maintains site integrity.
🙂
Originally posted by HandyAndyAppreciate your doctrinaire orientation to language, Andy. Realize also the dynamics of morphology are constantly in play, causing gradual
You're writing your own dictionary. There's no "nearly" in unmanageable. If you want a less rigid expression, say "nearly unmanageable."
changes in usage to evolve. "The presence of moderators is indispensable to maintaing RHP Site integrity" may have been a better way to go.